Simon Singh vs. the chiropractors: today in court

Noted British science writer Simon Singh was in the High Court today for an Appeal Hearing, the latest stage of his long-running legal battle with the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). The hearing today was before a very senior panel of three English High Court Judges, including the Lord Chief Justice. For those unfamiliar with the case, “Sceptical Lawyer” and occasional NN visitor David Allen Green discussed the specific legal issues at this hearing on his Jack of Kent blog over the weekend, and again today prior to the hearing in The Lawyer:

Simon Singh’s Bogus Journey

(this latter article is a good introduction to the case, as it gives a brief summary of the history and background as well as covering the specifically legal issues)

NN blogger Stephen Curry attended the morning part of the hearing where Singh’s lawyers presented their case, so I imagine we will hear about that from him in due course. In the afternoon, the BCA’s lawyers made their presentation. The afternoon’s events – notably the questioning of the BCA’s legal team by the Justices – has already received some attention both in the Twitterverse and in some of the online forums (see e.g. here). David Allen Green, who was in court, characterised the afternoon as the BCA’s lawyers being given “a deliciously hard time” by the Judges. Their Lordships have “reserved judgement”, as the saying is, so we do not know precisely when their (written) ruling will appear, though 6-8 weeks time is typical.

David Allen Green has promised an article on today’s events on his blog later today or perhaps tomorrow, which will be a must-read for anyone following the case. In the meantime, here are his Tweeted thoughts from outside the court following the hearing:

“Lord Chief Justice “baffled” why case has got this far, “surprised” BCA did not take Right of Reply”1

“Lord Chief Justice asked why, if BCA’s evidence existed, didn’t they just publish it?”2

“All three appeal judges very sharp on need for scientific debate and nature of scientific evidence”

The final comment is a heartening one for scientists everywhere: though particularly for those facing possible ruin in libel actions for having given their professional view of scientific or medical evidence, like cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst.

Thus the early signs from today are promising, though it must be stressed – as Simon Singh himself does here – that there is a long way to go. However, it is clear that the question of how English (malign?) libel laws impact on scientific debate is in the minds of England’s senior judiciary, and indeed some of its politicians. The hope is that this is “A Good Thing.”

Meanwhile, there is something you can do personally, if you haven’t already – you can sign the petition for reform of the English Libel Law. A push today, in solidarity with Singh’s appearance in court, got signatures over the 35,000 mark. I persuaded one of my colleagues to sign, and I am setting myself the target of one a day for the rest of this week. So please visit the site, read, and sign if you want to support the campaign.

And if you do want to support it, send your friends there too.

By signing you will help send a message, particularly to politicians, that scientists, and others who value the role of scientific evidence in debates and decision-making, are not going to let this issue go away.

PS Another good article on the case, written before today’s hearing, is this one from The Times by doctor, writer and philosopher Raymond Tallis.—————————————————————————————————

1. The BCA were offered an instant right of reply in the Guardian – 500 words was mentioned – when they complained about Singh’s original article. They turned it down and chose instead to sue Singh personally.

2. The BCA referred many times in the early stages of the case to all the evidence they had for their assertions about the treatments of various childhood ailments with chiropractic, most famously stating that there was “a plethora of evidence”. They did not, however, publish this evidence until very late in the day, and after much goading from the Sceptical Blogosphere. When the “plethora” appeared it was rapidly taken apart by bloggers,as you can read here. A summary deconstruction by Professor Edzard Ernst appeared in the British Medical Journal. This prompted an editorial by BMJ editor Fiona Godlee, who stated that:

”[Ernst’s] demolition of the 18 references is, to my mind, complete.”